Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 9, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claims reads “including a a cryptographic hash…” and has a typographical error with extra “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 1-6, 9-12 and 14-16 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 17 (representative of independent claim(s) 1 and 11) recites the following steps:
receiving a request with an identifier of a product;
accessing, based on the request, an object story data structure corresponding to the product, wherein the object story data structure includes a chain of claim elements and a chain of evidence elements, the chain of claim elements including a a cryptographic hash of one or more previous claim elements in the chain of claim elements: a link to a subsequent claim element in the chain of claim elements a statement about the product and an indication of a first evidence element of the chain of evidence elements, wherein the first evidence element: includes a cryptographic hash of one or more previous evidence elements in the chain of evidence elements and a link to a subsequent evidence element in the chain of evidence elements,
determining that the user has a profile of values, wherein the profile of values are interests of the user with respect to aspects of manufacturing of the product
selecting a portion of the object story data structure that is most relevant to the profile of values accessible by the system, the portion having the claim element the first evidence element, which supports the statement with a first level of evidence on the scale of proof, and a second evidence element of the chain of evidence elements that supports the statement with a second level of evidence on the scale of proof, wherein the second level is higher than the first level on the scale of proof;
formatting and displaying the portion of the object story data structure in a manner to indicate the second level of evidence is higher than the first level of evidenc
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) providing information regarding a lifecycle of products based on one or more user interests (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 17 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 and 11 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
a user computing device, (Claim 17)
accessible by the system (Claim 1, 17)
One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions that, when executed, cause a system to (Claim 1)
an object story management (OSM) system (Claim 1)
An apparatus comprising (Claim 11)
an interface, wherein the interface is a network interface or a user interface (Claim 11)
processing circuitry coupled with the interface, the processing circuitry (Claim 11)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “wherein individual evidence elements of the chain of evidence elements support the statement about the product with individual levels of evidence on a scale of proof and each of the first chain of claim elements and the first chain of evidence elements are implemented in a distributed ledger or blockchain " serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “wherein individual evidence elements of the chain of evidence elements support the statement about the product with individual levels of evidence on a scale of proof and each of the first chain of claim elements and the first chain of evidence elements are implemented in a distributed ledger or blockchain” serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2-5, and 14 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
scan the product or a label, an image, a radio-frequency identifier chip, an electronic ink display, or a quick response (QR) code associated with the product to obtain the identifier
a public interface module of the OSM system that manages the object story data structure for the product.
an interface of a consumer computing device
accessible to the system
the processing circuitry
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The recited additional elements also serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05 (g, h)). The claims are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, Examiner has considered the Affidavit- traversing rejections or objections rule 132 - filed on February 9, 2026 and found it to not be persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Applicant maintains and respectfully reasserts that claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-17, 19 and
20 satisfy the criteria of 35 U.S.C. § 101 with respect to patentable subject matter when properly analyzed using the two-step framework established by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims state that the method/apparatus involve the following: “receive a request that includes an identifier of a product and credentials of a user requesting information about the product;” or “access, based on the request, an object story data structure corresponding to the product, wherein the object story data structure includes a chain of claim elements and a chain of evidence elements, the chain of claim elements including a first claim element having a cryptographic hash of one or more previous claim elements in the chain of claim elements” or “determine whether that the user has a profile of values accessible by the system” or involve functions implemented by any of these computer components, or that the functions are performed via “an interface of a consumer computing device” and serve merely to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment - that being a computer environment.
Limitations that link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not qualify as "significantly more," and do not transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. The Supreme Court in Alice Corp. cautioned that merely limiting the use of an abstract idea “to a particular technological environment” or implementing the abstract idea on a “wholly generic computer” is not sufficient as an additional feature to provide “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citations omitted). The computers or processors recited in the claims are not particular in any way, other than that a particular abstract idea is being implemented using them. The instant claims do not require any specialized hardware. The instant specification explicitly states any broadly cited computing functions can be used to execute the abstract. The instant claims recite only common computer elements, e.g., “system”, “interface”, “a consumer computing device”, recognized as generic computer technology by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pet. Reply 2; see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2357; Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 713, 722-23. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The Supreme Court has stated expressly that simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it automatically transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one.
Applicant Argues: items 12 and 13 of the SMED describes how the embodiments of the invention, which are reflected in claim 1, for example, represent an improvement to existing technologies (for example, generic data structures stored blockchains or other distributed ledgers and targeted keyword searches that were known at the time of filing the priority application, U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/069,940). These improvements stem from the ability to separately manage distinct, but linked, chains of claim elements and evidence elements.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, object story structures is an abstract idea, The amendments directed to a cryptographic hash are considered to a mathematical concept. The Applicant’s claimed improvement is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant Argues: Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 recite additional elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(l) with respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the Alice analysis..
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In summary, no claim element, or combination of claims elements, ensures the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. The limitations do not amount to an improvement to another technology or technical field; an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; an application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; an effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and fail to add any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Significantly, the claim elements merely add specific limitations that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, and fail to add unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application. The limitations require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. compare data, identify data, process data). Therefore, no claim element, or combination of claims elements, ensures the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
Applicant Argues: Affidavit traversing rejections or objections rule 132
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification fails to clearly evidence how the use of a blockchain or ledger is an actual technological improvement over, or differs from, the expected general concept of using block chains or ledgers. It is unclear how the block chains or ledgers are being integrated in any specialized manner that serves any specialized technical purpose/solution.
The amended limitations being referred to simply gathers, organizes and analyze large amounts of data using generic computing functions to accomplish the claimed steps.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626